quote:

Originally posted by DevilDog2847:
uh34d-

I agree that it was potentially a good topic, and no doubt I'm sure the issue of gays and women in the military will come up, though I'm not sure if the Dems would be dumb enough to try to bring it up right away.
But then again, they may want to press the issue in order to give Pres elect Obama an opportunity to exert his authority as CiC. However, if done too soon I think it would blow up in their faces because a) there are more important things involving the military that need to be addressed, and b) over all the services don't seem to be too far behind their recruitment goals, if they are at all (the Marine Corps recently announced that it has met Pres. Bush's goal of increasing the end strength for the Marines and Army 2 years EARLY). I think Pres elect Obama would address it IF things manage to settle down over the next 4 years.

I agree that he didn't put up a very good argument. I too agree that if you can meet the requirements you should have an opportunity to try it BUT there are countless examples of standards being reduced for women so that an entity can look progressive (we have all heard stories over the years about standards for women in places such as the fire department).

However, I will say that while he will be CiC and the military will obviously follow orders because that's what we do, with 60%+ in favor of McCain, I would think he has a little work to do in earning the military's trust and respect.Given the fact that so many favored McCain it will be very interesting to see what he does to "unify" the military, if he feels the need to do such a thing at all.

quote:

Originally posted by DevilDog2847:
uh34d-

I think you are right about the "diversion" of funds (if you will) to domestic projects. However, I'm not sure how much he can get away with as far as public, or at least military perspective is concerned without getting spending across the board under control. I don't know if you can justify, in effect laying off people who volunteer to defend this country, while at the same time approving pork spending.
Politically, he will be able to do it. Politically he may HAVE to do it if that's what the Dems want. It remains to be seen just how much he is willing to break from party lines if they try to run the federal agenda. I'm not saying he won't, just that it remains to be seen if he will.

I think cuts in the military will be in the areas of high priced weapons systems but not in anything that will affect ground troops. I believe a complete review will be made of everything in development, systems beyond development and in the manufacturing pipeline. My opinion is the cuts will come in fixed wing aircraft, certain naval programs and missile programs. I think some of the money from such programs will be diverted to ground vehicles and individual weapons systems. The remainder of the money from such cuts will either be used to directly reduce the national debt or diverted into federal projects like roads, bridges, power grid, different energy producing technologies. He certainly will not be allowed to pizz away taxpayers money.

I think one of the first military spending cuts we will see after missile defense will be the G.I. Bill. It was unknown when it was passed how it could be funded. I think the reality is that it can't be funded as proposed. I predict the increase in tuition assistance will stay, but I think they will nix the housing allowance.

I don't believe we will see cuts in this area. Jim Webb expended lots of political energy getting the Bill prepared and passed and it has some heavy support in both houses of Congress...and I think Obama is a person who will do right by veterans.[COLOR:RED]

The Pres elect has been accused of being an elitist. My hope is that a fraction of that is true and it will allow him to stand up to some of Pelosi and Reid's hairbrained schemes they are sure to try and implement because they think that THEY now have a mandate. That duo have really not been very effective leaders, presiding over a Congress whose approval ratings were consistantly well below Pres Bush and IMO didn't do much in the way of getting Pres elect Obama elected.

[COLOR:RED]There is a huge difference between being an elitist and intelligent. Obama appears to be intelligent and certainly no elitist. Regarding Reid and Pelosi, I would like nothing better than to see both of them replaced when the new Congress convenes. Sadly, I do not think this will happen. I do have to offer some defense of Democrats in the Senate. If a Party doesn't have those 60 votes, anything they attempt will be filibustered...and that is what the Republicans have done. Reid should step up to the plate and let the Republicans filibuster, instead, he always backs down by just the threat of it happening. I say move the cots in, bring in the fast food and keep the lights burning. As things now stand, it appears nothing is getting done...let'um filibuster so it is covered by the media.

I do agree, neither Reid nor Pelosi did a thing to get Obama elected.

It's no secret that I am not a supporter of his based upon his proposals and what little there IS known about him. HOWEVER, many of his claims, as many of the claims made by both sides about what they would do, where made during an election race. Now that he has been exposed to inside information, I'm sure it s quite sobering, as it would have been for Sen. McCain if he had won. Whether by chance or intent, he has been made into a very big man with very big feet. There for he has big shoes to fill.

I really have to disagree with you regarding Obama. I think there is mounds of information out there pertaining to his type of politics. In general, he seems to be a composite of Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, and Eisenhower. So in my opinion that makes him a person of many ideas and defines his political philosophy. I also believe much of his political philosophy is grounded in the beliefs and ideas of our Founders and a true belief in the Constitution.


In the end I guess you say "Yes Sir" and hope for the best.

quote:

Originally posted by AGBrina:

Some of you may have firsthand knowledge of this...I was told during an orientation given by the defense firm, which is primarily responsible for building the aircraft carrier George H.W.Bush, that designing the carrier to accomodate women added more than $1 Billion dollars to the cost of building the ship. That's about 25% above what it would have cost to build it for an all male crew. That means that the Navy gets 8 new carriers instead of 10! There is no way that accomodating the wishes of feminists in our military can be cost-justified. The policy regarding women in the military has -in most situations- degraded our defense capability.

quote:

Originally posted by AGBrina:
Some of you may have firsthand knowledge of this...I was told during an orientation given by the defense firm, which is primarily responsible for building the aircraft carrier George H.W.Bush, that designing the carrier to accomodate women added more than $1 Billion dollars to the cost of building the ship. That's about 25% above what it would have cost to build it for an all male crew. That means that the Navy gets 8 new carriers instead of 10! There is no way that accomodating the wishes of feminists in our military can be cost-justified. The policy regarding women in the military has -in most situations- degraded our defense capability.

The U.S. military should go back to the concept of WACs, WAFs, and WAVEs. Only this time these women units should be trained to act in all military occupational specialties; and serve in "Amazon" (i.e.all-female) warrior units. I suggest that the Army train and staff women to serve in all-female Combat Brigades, that the Marines have all-female regiments, that the Navy use all-female crews in selected warships, and that the AirForce do much the same for their wings and their base operational units. Of course, that also means that our armed forces will have all-male units as well.

This is not about proving whether women can fight as well as men. Mixing the genders is the problem. If left on their own, women can develop the initiative and the wherewithal to fight battles. There are some examples of the warfighting capability of all-female units in the Russian Army near the end of the First World War. At least one woman effectively took command of an all-male regiment during the course of one day's fighting. One of the best Soviet fighter pilots of the Second World War was a woman.

quote:

Originally posted by mercs4christ:
Dave- When building a carrier, you must separate men and women. That means building showers, bathrooms, etc. as well as rooms/bunks. This adds lots of space and requires new architecture and design that is more expensive than an all-male carrier. (you might have to forget about one straight wall and build it with a bend or curve, etc.)

quote:

Originally posted by BU10AS:
I have always thought that I learned to be a marine not from boot camp but from my upbringing in the home. It was mom and dad that taught me to follow orders. I have carried that on in my career in the marines. I follow orders. My orders include training to fight. I will fight in battle until ordered to stop. I consider myself to be a professional in my occupation. Those orders I follow must come from an organization I can trust and place my faith in that it will uphold those same morals I learned at home with mom and dad. When the battle is over I can rest in the way I look at war. It is not an act of my will but of those that sent me.